Talk:Maps of The Official Server/@comment-27522210-20170720090947/@comment-27522210-20170720194758
Hi Thji23, Lego, Grievious I was not implying that you used bias, but that it will interpreted in any case, never mind how unbiased you try to be. Same would happen to me - other way round. I personaly don't see the current system as supporting fun... Basicaly currently someone claims something and then others who have an interest in the same area simply start to ignore it. Happened to Good, happened to Evil and is still happening. I like both your approaches, Lego and Grievious, you constructively suggest rules we can discuss. Quote Lego: Sovereign territory can only exist if all parties agree to the borders, otherwise the area will be marked as contested. - (add JC:) Let us add Grievious suggestion to it: make it parties with a reasonable interest in the matter. (Being those with adjacent territory, own builds etc.) Quote Lego: Religious maps are based of lore as lore decides the ethnicities of the region and the religion. Though if a faction rules over an area they do not in lore then the area can be marked with 2 or more religions. - (add JC:) I would take the religious map out of it - I think we will have less of a dispute here, as it is lore and not directly concerning the situation on the server. Quote Lego: Players in territorial disputes cannot edit areas of said disputes, though they can edit other areas. - (add JC:) I think there should be a low amount of players anyway who are allowed to change the maps - people with the tools and the skill to do it right. I support both Thij and eg Liodir here, cause both of them have proven in the past to be able to do this with great skill. Others may be added to the page admins over time... Quote Lego: The comments sections will not be used for discussing territory, only for asking for permission from the community to edit a part of a map or to provide suggestions on how to improve it (not to change the actual territories though. - (add JC:) I am ok with that to leave the claiming, discussing and whatever out of the comments. But where and how do we do it then? I hope not by just writing to Thij. I think this is something faction leaders (the only ones who should be allowed to claim anything) have to do between themselves and then together approach the mapmaker with either a solution and change or no solution and change something to contested. Quote Lego: Players in territorial disputes can edit the page (not the map) to add their claim to an area, though they cannot edit out another players claim. - (add JC:) this is the opposite from what was stated above. The solution to just have a few editors could solve this. Quote Grievous: Claimed waypoints should come first and foremost. They're the most visible sign of control and one of the two forms that actually matter in the rules. - (add JC:) a good rule. But there is no claim on waypoints in the rules, just the permission to build there. (and after that the rule about players owning BUILDS (not waypoints) applies. If we agree on that the player owning the build owns the waypoint - ok, but then see below what problem could arise from this. Quote Grievous: Build presence should come next. By the rules, this is the second form that actually matters, and is also visible. - (add JC:) Build ownership is covered by the rules. It states that a player owns a build (never a faction). Currently we use it in a way that whichever faction this player is in happens to "own" the build (as long as the player is ok with it). It works as long as said player isn't changeing allegiance, or selling the build to someone else of a different faction. Admins reserve their right to interfere if the new owner doesn't seem appropriate. All in all this is a base we can agree on, if certain aspects of it are handled. Like if I (as a Gondorian) build in Far Harad in an area where noone else built before - can I claim the land for Gondor - like: I claim interest in ressources? Imperialism has happened before even in Middle earth... (Numenor did it on a grand scale) In a different paragraph Grievious talks a botu this. I will look at the argument over there... Just stating here: Build control can be an option, but that simple rule is open to discussion and strife: What kind of builds will constitute a claim? My suggestion: It has to be siegeable - and when contested needs to be taken or defended in a siege. Just one option to solve it. If I build a simple house with a door (that I can leave open as the siege rules imply) it is siegable. Does it count? IMO: open for discussion. A good base but not finished... Quote Grievous: I sum up all the rest here, cause it concerns legitimacy. I will not repeat it in detail, read in Grievous post for the content please. - (add JC:) I like the basic idea behind it. We use common sense. But to be precise, it is exactly the lack of the latter that always leads to strife and problems on the server. I am not pointing fingers here, nobody is perfect. Just stating that common sense and legitimacy for one side doesn't need to be the same for the other side. So imo we need to define exactly when a claim or contest of a claim is legitimate and when not. And for the odd case we can't agree upon we need a way to settle the dispute. (War, Treaty, Mediation - whatever) Also, after this wall of text, I suggest we should take this discussion somewhere else - a special discord channel reserved to this subject? Anyone interested can join... Cheers and thx for discussing my initial comment, JC